Posted on 08/29/2002 6:03:39 PM PDT by runningbear
Gray Davis continues to distort the truth and make false accusations against me, and ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!
The GLOVES ARE OFF!
We have unveiled a new ad that strikes at the core of Davis’ Pay-to-Play antics in the Governor’s office. The ad, titled “This Whole Thing Stinks,” highlights Davis’ willingness to sell even our children’s health to the highest bidder.
“This Whole Thing Stinks”
A Gray Davis board stopped a big oil company, Tosco, from dumping more dioxin into our water.
But, the very next day, Tosco gave more than $50,000 to Davis’s campaign.
The Davis board quickly reversed itself…
…and allowed Tosco to increase cancer- causing dioxin dumping… 400%.
click here to contribute Simonforgovernor.com
I NEED YOUR HELP!!
Your most generous contribution will help me keep this ad on television.
As you may have read, MY CAMPAIGN IS COMMITTED TO CONTINUE RUNNING ADS FROM NOW UNTIL THE ELECTION. But we can’t do that without sufficient financial support from concerned people like you. We need your help.
Please click hereSimon to contribute and donate whatever you can, $25, $50 or $1000. If at all possible consider a monthly contribution. Your help now is CRITICAL TO THE OUTCOME OF THE ELECTION!
Thank you for your help.
Sincerely,
P.S. PLEASE HELP ME remind Californians that Gray Davis has used his office to raise millions of dollars at the expense of the citizens of our state.
Your help right now is crucial. Go to: http://www.simonforgovernor.com/responsecontribute.php?134 today! You will also be redirected to an online video clip of our new ad after you’ve made your contribution!
I don't believe dd is subscribing to immorality, he's just sayin' these folks who don't understand the logistics of nature are improving his odds at meeting chicks.
FReegards...MUD
Should be simple enough.
I haven't seen more than one or two messages here from people advocating a third party vote; what people are saying is that Simon is damaging himself, by chasing votes that he CANNOT get, at the expense of votes he already had.
NOBODY is sabotaging Bill Simon, except Sal Russo.
Yes, Simon is better than Davis. Yes, conservatives should still vote for them. But, the reality is, they probably won't vote for him in the numbers they would have before he endorsed a Gay Pride Day.
That's nobody's fault but his.
Dittoes!! The time to go after RINOs is during the primaries, but to do anything to elect a RAT is inexcusable, IMHO!! The RATS have exposed themselves to be unrepentantly anti-American Socialists who revel in Felon/Rapist/Traitors being atop their National Ticket...and anybody who would find common cause cause with the Clintonized RATS is either IGNORANT, EVIL, or BOTH!!
FReegards...MUD
SHEEEESH...he didn't "endorse a Gay Pride Day," he simply said he would not end it!! Of course you and I think it is as inane as declaring a Straight Pride Day, but making a strong stand that he would ban it would not me me any more likely to vote for Simon, while it would stir up a beehive of angry lispers on 5 November!!
FReegards...MUD
I didn't make that up. Honest.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/740741/posts
Tackling key issues of gay rights, GOP Republican gubernatorial candidate Bill Simon says that if elected he will declare a Gay Pride Day, would not oppose current laws on gay adoption, and supports domestic partnership laws -- as long as they're not based on sexual orientation.
Now, is that the worst crime a Republican has ever committed? No. I frankly don't care all that much. I am just pointing out that this is a good example of why the GOP continues to lose in California; they forget that there are quite a few true-blue Christian conservatives in the state, and they need to figure out a way to keep them voting Republican.
He nuked Mike Farris candidacy also, and I'm convinced he was behind the GOPers who put the stake in Gilmore's Governorship as well. Warner needs to get the payback that's coming to him!!
FReegards...MUD
You have said a lot, and it's all good. We have a conservative in Bill Simon. He may not be perfect, but he's with us on virtually every issue. He may have stumbled once or twice, but he's still a conservative and he still is head and shoulders about Gray Davis -- and Richard Riordan and Bill Jones.
I'm thinking about posting this speech for all to read. In the meantime, here's the link.
A Time For Choosing Speech by Ronald Reagan
One quote:
You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children's children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done.There's another Reagan speech that is a MUST READ for conservatives. Many of you probably have never heard of it. The Creative Society. This speech was given by Reagan when he was running for governor 36 years ago.
A quote:
Those who talk of complex problems, requiring more government planning and more control, in reality are taking us back in time to the acceptance of rule of the many by the few. Time to look to the future. We've had enough talk--disruptive talk--in America of left and right, dividing us down the center. There is really no such choice facing us. The only choice we have is up or down--up, to the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down, to the deadly dullness of totalitarianism.It's hard to pick just one quote, so I suggest that everyone read the speech. Reagan says, "The administration in Sacramento is guilty of a leadership gap. Unwilling, or unable, to solve the problems of California." Is it any different today?
As Edmund Burke said, "The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." Or worse, vote third party which only helps your enemies.
We are the party of Reagan, love him or hate him. We are not perfect, but we are far better than the Democrats. We have room to improve, but if the conservatives bail to a third party we will never improve.
Bill Simon is our hope and opportunity and will make a fine conservative Governor. We won't agree with him 100% of the time, but we can't even agree with each other 100% of the time! Let's band together and fight the war -- the Democrats are fighting the war, and we're killing our own with "friendly fire".
But what, precisely, is immoral about men wanting to have sexual relations with other men, instead of women?
To me, something cannot be immoral unless it deliberately harms another person. For instance, murder is immoral. Theft is immoral.
But who is harmed by homosexuality? As far as I can tell, nobody. (AIDS is not deliberate harm, and I don't think you'd be any less resentful of homosexuals who use condoms, so it really doesn't count in the context of this discussion).
If you consider the number of murders and thefts that occur in this world, it seems to me that going after homosexuality has to be about bottom on the world's agenda.
Greyout Davis, as is well documented, has accepted bribes. This unquestionably harms the public as a whole. Is this not worse than tolerating homosexuality, which Davis does every bit as much as Simon, if not more?
Forgive my curiosity. I hope you can answer this in the spirit of friendly inquriy. If you answer it with invective, you're effectively admitting the correctness of my arguments.
D
"Going after homosexuality" is a bit of a stretch, isn't it? I've lost a cousin to AIDS, and have rented to gays, and I've worked with a number of gays although I have no idea how many because the subject simply doesn't come up. What bothers me is the RADICAL Gay Agenda that looks to demean Holy Matrimony by calling same-sex unions "marriage" or looks to expand their rights to sue employers who they deem display some nefarious anti-gay bias. C'mon now, I really don't care who you share your bed with, but don't try and cram "Jimmy Has Two Daddies" down my kids throats at public schools!!
If gay couples want the rights that society has deemed worthy for the Institution of "Marriage", well, call it "Coupling" or something and fight through the political process to attain the same rights, but don't go thinking you can just call that lifestyle "marriage" and thereby accrue all those same rights in one fell swoop.
"...what, precisely, is immoral about men wanting to have sexual relations with other men, instead of women?"
Every religion to ever grace this planet has protested against Men lying down with Men, but I tend to find it more unthinkable than evil. Sure, it's immoral, but in the big scheme of things, I'm not one to go around hunting down folks who partake in it...seems like they're doing more damage to themselves than anything. Plus, most miss out on the pure pleasure of raising kids that they helped procreate.
FReegards...MUD
Thank you for you polite question. I will try to give you a polite answer. First, your question appears to presuppose that morality is nothing more than personal preference, i.e. whatever I think is right is right, etc., as opposed to the existence of universal moral absolutes. Is this your position?
But what, precisely, is immoral about men wanting to have sexual relations with other men, instead of women?
Let me ask you--what is immoral about a woman wanting to have sex with a horse, or what is immoral about a father wanting to have sex with his daughter if both are willing participants?
To me, something cannot be immoral unless it deliberately harms another person. For instance, murder is immoral. Theft is immoral.
I Is it wrong to murder because someone is harmed or is it wrong because murder is simply absolutely wrong as a universal moral rule? The bigger question is: Why is it wrong to harm someone under your moral system? Who says? You see, absolute morals come from God - that is the only logical source. All other sources are manmade, and if they are manmade, then one man's morals cannot be superior to another man's. Or, more specifically, non-cruelty and cruelty are ABSOLUTELY EQUAL! Marquis de Sade clearly saw this - he knew if God doesn't exist that cruelty and non-cruelty are equal in the final analysis. This may take some thought to really grasp, but there is no escaping this conclusion.
Therefore, the only logical conclusion that makes sense with human experience and the real world is that absolute morals exist and they are from God.
But who is harmed by homosexuality? As far as I can tell, nobody. (AIDS is not deliberate harm, and I don't think you'd be any less resentful of homosexuals who use condoms, so it really doesn't count in the context of this discussion).
But AIDS is harm, isn't it? And those who practice homosexuality know the risk of such harm, don't they? Also, statistics indicate that the life expectancy of homosexuals is much less than heterosexuals. Besides, sometimes harm is not readily apparent right away. sometimes, harm can occur in the "long run" and on that basis your utilitarian moral system collapses becuase you cannot predict if harm will come from your action until significant time has passed to assess the situation. I am not resentful of homosexuals and I don't hate them. I merely say that their behavior is against universal moral laws.
If you consider the number of murders and thefts that occur in this world, it seems to me that going after homosexuality has to be about bottom on the world's agenda.
Again, why is it wrong to harm someone? Who says so?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.